[cdi-dev] [JBoss JIRA] (CDI-282) Vetoing types - clarify consequences

Mark Struberg (JIRA) jira-events at lists.jboss.org
Sat Jan 12 16:17:21 EST 2013

    [ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-282?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12745519#comment-12745519 ] 

Mark Struberg commented on CDI-282:

Martin, should we support @Vetoed on annotations at all? We don't fire ProcessAnnotatedType for them neither, isn't? It just sounds crazy to use a veto annotation on a CDI annotation. You could simply comment out the @Qualifier and get the same effect ;)
> Vetoing types - clarify consequences
> ------------------------------------
>                 Key: CDI-282
>                 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/CDI-282
>             Project: CDI Specification Issues
>          Issue Type: Clarification
>            Reporter: Martin Kouba
>            Assignee: Pete Muir
>            Priority: Critical
>             Fix For: 1.1.PFD
> The spec currently says {{@Vetoed}} type is *prevented from being considered by CDI* and {{ProcessAnnotatedType.veto()}} forces the container to ignore the type. This is quite obvious for classes and interfaces. However not so clear when vetoing annotations (e.g. qualifier). I think ignoring means not being considered as qualifier (thus affects resolution). Other (rather theoretical) example is vetoing non-contextual instances - should it prevent performing dependency injection?

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

More information about the cdi-dev mailing list